Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Romans 9 Revisited...

Forum Quick Jump

127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/28/2003 5:27 PM (GMT -6)

Hmmm. Cool, Iconoclast. Read the post right before your last one. See what you think.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2003 6:02 PM (GMT -6)

MephEternal

A) God ONLY exhibits continuous, carefully detailed, divine direction such that God is ultimately behind a PARTICULAR act of pain, suffering and loss (morally initiated or otherwise)…when it is the case that some form of REDEMPTION, either for the persons involved or others, is ensured to emerge from it. Moreover, any sentient beings who are under this carefully detailed, divine direction while doing such things are NOT morally responsible for those actions, but will suffer natural reprecussions for the actions taken, whatever they may be.

Iconoclast

This makes sense to me. A doctor setting a broken bone comes to mind. And yes, the patient might kick the doctor for causing him pain at the moment but still be grateful that he did it.

I like the way you separate "accountability" (natural repercussions) from moral responsibility. It seems to me that moral responsibility then really relates to intent rather than impact. Accountability relates to impact. We will experience the natural repercussion of our behavior - of the impact we make whether our intent was good or not.

What are some other examples of this? How far would you take it?

MephEternal

B) Let it be stated that God does NOT ordain sentient beings to their final states unconditionally. But, FOR THE SAKE OF SOME TYPE OF REDEMPTIVE ACTIVITY as described earlier, God CAN ordain that a being will not choose God FOR A SPECIFIC TIME and PURPOSE.

Iconoclast

God can harden Pharaoh's heart and cause him NOT to choose to love for a period of time with the intent of bringing about a greater possibility of love being chosen. My only concern with this is that it seems problematic to me if this compatibilistic action would for sure add to the negative solidification of Pharaoh's heart. It seems to me that God's loving intent would be to not only do this for other agent's benefit but for Pharaoh's as well. Not that it would FOR SURE improve Pharaoh's solidification but that it at least had some probability of improving Pharaoh's chances of repenting. To me this is analogous to "prescribing the symptom".

Perhaps your definition meant to explicitly state this but it seems ambiguous on this point.

Again, how far would you take this?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 8/28/2003 6:31 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi,

OK, I think that I'm following your last post, and I.... may.... see... what you're saying. I would disagree with those who would say that God is not responsible for some suffering (the whole "pain is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world" thing) You nailed my problems with what you were saying earlier in these two objections

quote:
1) This would render moral responsibility in those cases highly problematic. If sin is defined as “going against God’s will” with the implicit sense of moral responsibility for that, how would someone who does evil while under compatibilistic divine direction be “SINNING” against God? The idea of “sin” loses meaning in those situations.

2) This would seem to make God the “author” of things which God supposedly hates. How God could predestine not just the CONTEXT for certain evils to emerge, but the PARTICULAR INSTANTIATION of evil…while supposedly being AGAINST evil in all forms? If God doesn’t LIKE people choosing against God, and ultimately doesn’t WANT that to happen at any time, then why would God ORDAIN some people not to choose God. This seems contradictory.

Right on... No one can be causally determined by God to go to hell because the essence of Damnation is rejection of God.

After looking over your amendments to your thinking on this thread, I don't see anything that I disagree with. I like this...

quote:
ALL times of compatibilistic action with beings that involve some type of pain, suffering, or loss ALL deal with some form of redemption (either for the persons involved or others) from which God gets glory. NO persons are compatibilistically consigned to hell, but can be prevented for choosing God for a specific time and purpose of God's design.

Thanks for the clarification Tongue

!

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/28/2003 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/28/2003 7:22 PM (GMT -6)

PoW: Calvin saw God WOOOOOOO-ing mankind! Election is IN CHRIST. God gives us over to our passions if we reject Him. But our chosenness is not the result of manipulation. It is a result of the theatre of God's wooing.

Tom: Next you'll be saying Calvin was Arminian or an open theist. Wink

For Calvin our "chosenness" is unconditionally decreed by God. There is nothing outside of God, no theatre, no cinema, no interaction, nothing but God's own will uninformed by foreknowledge and uninfluenced by anything outside himself, which is responsible for our being "chosen" (along with our willing and not willing, along with the secondary means that Calvinists call "conditions"). If God WAS going to manipulate us without coercing us against our wills, how would it look any different than this?

Tom

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/28/2003 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

Well Meph man, you sure know how to get a conversation going!

Doc Says: What does "love for John" look like – indeed, what does "God’s PERFECT love for John" look like if it includes God directing John to damnation? If God positively HATED John, how would his behavior toward John look different?
Meph Responds: Perfect love looks like Jesus, the one who is the Lord of ALL THINGS , through whom ALL THINGS came to be, to whom ALL THINGS go…and by whom ALL THINGS are sustained.
Doc: I agree with your definition of perfect love. But I fail to see how God directing John to damnation is an expression of it!!!

Iconoclast: I think the bottom line to this is that Calvinists MUST reject the idea that Love must be chosen because this implies that there exists a category where for God to be sovereign over each and every instance MEANS that God CANNOT be sovereign over the entire category and THIS contradicts their presupposition that sovereignity MEANS sovereignity over the category AND each and every instance.

Doc: I think you "category/instance" distinction is helpful, if a bit convoluted. I like your sorting system Icon!

Meph: The idea of God loving people that God would unconditional assign to hell is NOT incoherent if we keep in mind that God’s continual sustenance IS a demonstration of God’s unconditional love to us.
Doc: This works only if hell is seen as better than non-existence – which in the traditional understanding of hell, it is not. If hell is worse than non-existence, then it is NOT an expression of love to compatiblistic consign someone to it and hold someone IN IT for eternity. If hell is annihilation, the idea is less problematic. And if universalism is true, its not problematic at all (though it still has problems on other accounts).

Meph: Let it be stated that God does NOT ordain sentient beings to their final states unconditionally. But, FOR THE SAKE OF SOME TYPE OF REDEMPTIVE ACTIVITY as described earlier, God CAN ordain that a being will not choose God FOR A SPECIFIC TIME and PURPOSE.
I think this works out. It shows how God truly CAN harden people and actually withhold salvation from people for a time for his own purposes…perhaps even to endure some type of tremendous pain, suffering, or loss…WITHOUT necessarily saying this is an end state.

Doc: If I had any reason to think that God hardening peoples hearts was a matter of him making people who would be open to him NOT open to him, I’d accept your idea. It is not logically incoherent. But I have absolutely no reason to think that in reality this happens. Each instance of God hardening (lit. "strengthening") a person’s heart is AN ACT OF JUDGEMENT in RESPONSE to rebellion.

Over all, once you take out the eternal destiny bit, I have little problem IN PRINCPLE with the idea of God occasionally removing libertarian freedom for reasons that are beyond us (the "glorification" principle). I would only add that in so far this happens, the person being acted on is not morally responsible for their action except insofar as their action is an expression of an antecedent character they themselves have freely chosen..

Blessings
Doc

ps. Is it me, or were you (Meph) logg'n in on work time? Eyebrow

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/28/2003 8:00 PM (GMT -6)

Great! We are getting somewhere!

Iconoclast:

quote:
One concern I have with this is that it seems to leave open the possibility that God would do something unloving to person A in order to bring about some form of redemption for person B. Any pain caused by God to ANYONE it seems to me would be designed to cause greater probability of redemption (their greater disposition to choose love) for EVERYONE involved.

Yes, that possibility is there intentionally. This is the “sacrificing the rook for the queen” idea. In dealing with the “God does the most that God can do” idea, this is indispensible. Bottom line: Sometimes the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one. This is NOT to say that God doesn’t love every individual. This is to say that, in some cases, sacrifices become necessary. To be sure, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, God tries to be redemption to everyone involved. But sometimes, it has to be a “greater good” idea because of certain situations…where God does the most for the MOST possible.

*****************************
Doc:

quote:
If I had any reason to think that God hardening peoples hearts was a matter of him making people who would be open to him NOT open to him, I’d accept your idea. It is not logically incoherent. But I have absolutely no reason to think that in reality this happens. Each instance of God hardening (lit. "strengthening") a person’s heart is AN ACT OF JUDGEMENT in RESPONSE to rebellion.

I think that the hardening can take place under both circumstances. Some people would not see Pharoah’s hardening as a judgement necessarily. And for those people, the other idea would be acceptable. The main thing, though, is that we would be saying that, whenever this occurs, it is definitely for some “greater good” thing dealing with redemption in some context. This preserves the whole character thing.

**************************

Doc:

quote:
Over all, once you take out the eternal destiny bit, I have little problem IN PRINCPLE with the idea of God occasionally removing libertarian freedom for reasons that are beyond us (the "glorification" principle). I would only add that in so far this happens, the person being acted on is not morally responsible for their action except insofar as their action is an expression of an antecedent character they themselves have freely chosen.

COOL. Thanks for this, Doc. Wink

******************************

See, here’s the cool thing about this. With the amendments that I’m making above, it is a matter of FAITH in God’s character that we know the redemption is coming out of the compatibilistic working of God in those times. However, the redemptive aspect may NOT necessarily be something that WE, in our finitude, can see directly. Ambiguity STILL remains. Just like we talked about before. We cannot directly tell WHICH times of pain, suffering, and loss are “sacrifices of the rook for the queen” because we don’t have all the factors in view. What may look like random mess to us may have VERY POWERFUL redemptive influences elsewhere. Butterfly effect, ya know. Wink

So, we CANNOT be sure of what pain, suffering, and loss God may employ by God’s divine direction, but we can know that WHENEVER IT OCCURS, in whatever context, it is truly dealing with not only God’s glory in a real sense (I’ll do more explaining on that later) but it also deals with REDEMPTIVE purposes, both God and all of Creation considered.

Same thing with the “hardening” thing. Though God may compatibistically lead people either to or away from God for a certain amount of time of God’s choosing, we can be sure that these times are for redemptive purposes as well…and that God doesn’t unconditionally divine determine particular persons to be damned finally, though they may be "vessels of wrath" for a time, like Pharoah.

Encouraged,
Evil

"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."

--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/28/2003 9:07 PM (GMT -6)

Encapsulation of the Glorification Principle At Work.

There are two postulations I’d like to make for possible divine INTENTIONS for this Creation. In other words, the emboldened things below are two things that I believe we have biblical justification to say that God wanted to accomplish with God’s Creation:

1) God wanted to have a context where sentient created beings would freely LOVE God, love each other, and in so doing, form a Bride that will join the “dance’ of love with the Triune God.

This almost goes without saying. God created Creation for the existence of loving RELATIONSHIP with God and IN God. All of Scripture testifies to this. In this, God is glorified.

2) God wanted to reveal Godself in myriad facets to Creation, including being a Creator, Sovereign Ruler, Savior, Healer, Miracle Worker, etc., in order to magnify God’s own glory.

THIS is where, I believe, the underemphasized aspect of “glory” really comes in. God is a God of SELF-REVELATION as well as hiddeness. God gets glory from revealing Godself in different contexts. I believe this is the line of continuity in ALL of the texts where God specifically talks about getting glory. God seeks his glory by REVEALING different dimensions of Godself to Creation. As God’s love, power, mercy, justice, and yes, wrath are made known to God’s creation in God’s dealings with Creation, Creation become more aware of God’s different facets, and so God is all the more glorified.

I believe that both of these ideas are BIBLICALLY based and justifiable. Moreover, I believe that these postulations MUST be held in concert with one another to fill out the view. Holding these views together prevents God from becoming a Creation-centered love slave on one hand…and an aloof completely egocentric narcissist on the other. God’s desire for God’s centrality and glory coincide with, BUT DON’T AMALGAMATE WITH, God’s desire to expand and promote love.

In taking the two idea, we have the framework from whence to talk about a worldview where both types of compatibilism and libertarian freedom exist simulataneously. A worldview where God CAN unconditionally determine particular events involving sentient beings AND where God can relate to pure possibilities dealing with sentient beings. A worldview where the potter truly can and does exert continuous, carefully detailed divine direction of the clay and yet can RELAX his direction as to allow for the clay to take its OWN shape, that the potter can contour into a design that fits his own good will and pleasure.

Taken together, we see that there are a NUMBER of factors that come into play when we deal with the problem of evil, suffering, pain, and loss. Satanic and demonic influences. Absence or presences of prayer. Chance. Sin. Unconditional divine direction of pain, suffering, or loss for redemptive purposes. NONE of them can be thrown away. Though much ambiguity abounds, we understand that in all things 1) God is working for the good AND 2) God IS being glorified…in ways that we cannot even imagine.

We can show important things that make this work, with some of the stuff we’ve been talking about. Things like…

--how libertarian freedom can exist WITHOUT God losing sovereignty or giving away God’s centrality and “absoluteness”

--how 1st type compatibilism exists WITHOUT ultimately compromising the character of Creator or the integrity of the created.

--how God can have “vessels of wrath” WITHOUT negating that God loves all sentient beings.

--how God’s will circumscribes and prevails in all things WITHOUT saying that all things are unconditionally determined by God.

No all-or-nothing. No either/or. Both/and.

I’m such a friggin dreamer… Shy

"Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real."
--Tupac Shakur

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/29/2003 3:08 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Mephi: God would have LOVED to have everyone spend eternity with God, but because of his glorious plans for Creation and the TYPE of Creation God wanted, it wasn’t possible for God to do this.
Tom: I certainly wouldn’t sign on to this.

Tom: I certainly wouldn’t sign on to this.

Mephi: Oh, is that right? You wouldn’t say that if there was ANY WAY POSSIBLE that God could have saved all people, that he WOULD have? You wouldn’t say that what prevented God from being ABLE to would be his unswerving integrity to Godself and God’s purposes? You wouldn’t say that God’s PURPOSES include God’s plans for and design for Creation?

OK, as you worded it, it seemed to me that the “…do this” at the very end referred to the opening “loving to have everyone spend eternity with God,” so that it seemed to me you were saying that God’s glorious plans for creation meant God could NOT wish that everyone spend eternity with him. If you ended with something like, “…it wasn’t possible for God to guarantee that everyone would spend eternity with him” then I’m OK with it. Maybe I misread ya. No problem.

Mephi: So, recapping. The idea of God loving people that God would unconditional assign to hell is NOT incoherent if we keep in mind that God’s continual sustenance IS a demonstration of God’s unconditional love to us.

Tom: It seems to me that sustaining a person’s existence is no more or less loving an act than is the purpose for which existence is sustained loving or unloving. That is, the act of sustaining existence derives its character as loving or unloving from the purpose for which it is undertaken. It does not seem to me to be loving to sustain someone’s existence if the person is being “fattened for the slaughter” so to speak (which is certainly a possible reason for keeping somebody alive), kept alive to so that he or she meets their unconditionally predetermined damnation. I can keep my enemy alive. Doesn’t mean I love him. All depends on the end purpose for which God sustains us.

Mephi: 1) God wanted to have a context where sentient created beings would freely LOVE God, love each other, and in so doing, form a Bride that will join the “dance’ of love with the Triune God.

Tom: This is your first postulation regarding the glorification principle. I would word it like this: God created humankind equally intending every individual who ever lives to know and enjoy his love forever and to this end God endowed every individual person with the one sort of freedom that makes knowing and enjoying divine love possible.

Those who respond to God’s overtures and offers of love constitute the Bride. But wording it this way means a) your first postulate is all-embracing (which is not now the case as you have it worded), and b) you’ll have to reword your second postulate, which you probably don’t want to do. The second would have to be embraced by the first and worded something like: “All that God does brings glorify to Godself.” Is this not enough?

Being revealed as judger of sinners, for example, (and other characteristics which require there to be some people who fail to qualify under the first postulate as the Bride) is unconditionally committed to as far as God’s intentions are concerned but they are contingently fulfilled. So, given God’s purposes for Creation in the first postulate, God would have been perfectly happy and consummately glorified in never having to send a single individual to hell. But in light of sin’s impact upon God’s creation, God is able to respond in such ways that always rebound to his glory. So, “glory” is understood not as something God attempts to achieve, the means of which must predetermined, but as something God cannot help but reveal in all his acts, determined and contingent, because of who God is. But you will have to abandon the doctrine that that insists that God actualize all potential attributes, that God determine all the possible means by which he may be uniquely glorified. Given the first postulate, there’s no good reason to believe that God has willed to guarantee that there be some sinners around he can send to hell and thus be revealed as “judger of sinners” and receive glory. As long as you hold on to this you’ll have to curtail the scope of the first postulate so as to guarantee that SOME people don’t make it. This is a hold-over from your determinism, Mephi. Let it go Luke! Let it goooo. Spirit of determinism come out I say! Cool

Lastly, believing that God’s love embraces all individuals in what God purposes for those individuals (and not at the minimum level of sustaining their distinct existence irrespective of God’s end purpose for them) encourages us to be God’s love-slaves rather than the other way around. To view God as my love-slave is to NOT embrace God’s loving purpose for my life, to NOT understand love, to remain in ignorance and sin.

Theological determinists are not exempt on account of their theology from the temptation to believe God exists to love and serve THEM. Just take a look at Israel’s attitude about themselves and about God as a result of believing God had uniquely chosen THEM out from all the nations of the earth. At its worst it amounted to insisting that God bless Jews because they are Jews and insisting that Gentiles not be blessed without first becoming Jews. True, determinists will want to correct this by pointing out that such an attitude involves misunderstanding the nature of God’s choice and grace. Fine. Exactly my point. Both ends of the continuum (the deterministic and the wide open, and all that’s in between) can be perverted in ANY one of several ways, from viewing God as tyrant to viewing him as a love-slave.

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6)

Tom, you ALL-OR-NOTHING PERSON!!! Tongue

You’re NOT willing to compromise, are you?

Tom:

quote:
Those who respond to God’s overtures and offers of love constitute the Bride. But wording it this way means a) your first postulate is all-embracing (which is not now the case as you have it worded), and b) you’ll have to reword your second postulate, which you probably don’t want to do. The second would have to be embraced by the first and worded something like: “All that God does brings glorify to Godself.” Is this not enough?

In making your change, you KNOW that you are excluding all determinists. But think about it. With my current definition, you could STILL say what you are saying with out violating it. But the definition allows for people who want to say that SOME people can be compatibilistically divinely directed for MOST of their existences.

Actually, I could keep much of your definition. God WOULD be granting all people a locus of libertarian freedom. It's not like NO ONE doesn't have that. But it is possible that SOME PERSONS are more divinely directed for more of their lives than others.

*********************************

Tom:

quote:
Being revealed as judger of sinners, for example, (and other characteristics which require there to be some people who fail to qualify under the first postulate as the Bride) is unconditionally committed to as far as God’s intentions are concerned but they are contingently fulfilled. So, given God’s purposes for Creation in the first postulate, God would have been perfectly happy and consummately glorified in never having to send a single individual to hell. But in light of sin’s impact upon God’s creation, God is able to respond in such ways that always rebound to his glory. So, “glory” is understood not as something God attempts to achieve, the means of which must predetermined, but as something God cannot help but reveal in all his acts, determined and contingent, because of who God is. But you will have to abandon the doctrine that that insists that God actualize all potential attributes, that God determine all the possible means by which he may be uniquely glorified. Given the first postulate, there’s no good reason to believe that God has willed to guarantee that there be some sinners around he can send to hell and thus be revealed as “judger of sinners” and receive glory. As long as you hold on to this you’ll have to curtail the scope of the first postulate so as to guarantee that SOME people don’t make it. This is a hold-over from your determinism, Mephi. Let it go Luke! Let it goooo. Spirit of determinism come out I say!

1) I’m not saying that God is trying to ACHIEVE glory. God IS glorious. What I’m trying to say is that God is MORE GLORIFIED as more facets of God are revealed in various contexts. To the extent, those contexts arise, God has more opportunity to reveal Godself in different, even UNIQUE ways to people.

2) I’m NOT saying that God has to actualize all facets of Godself. In fact, God doesn’t.

3) If you believe in the INEVITABILITY OF SIN, like me, Modes, Doc and about MOST OTHERS here do, then there’s no problem. We talked about this LONG time ago when we first was dealing with the glorification priniciple. It’s not like we are saying that God PLANNED the actual emergence of sin. God NOT BEING NAÏVE and infinitely intelligent to boot, realized that sin was an inevitability and that it WOULD come to be. Thinking thusly, it is completely possible that God would say that ONCE SIN EMERGED (which it would), certain things that he had predestined for particular beings to do WOULD come to pass. The first postulate doesn’t NEED to guarantee that some people don’t make it. SHEER STATISTICAL PROBABILITY does that! Smile

4) Keep in mind my latest thing. I'm NOT SAYING (right now) that God unconditionally determines END STATES. That's important.

5) Judgement of sin takes place in earthly existence too. So, God would be revealed as judge of sinners...WITHOUT positing that this means compatibilistically determining end states.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 3:31 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:

quote:
It seems to me that sustaining a person’s existence is no more or less loving an act than is the purpose for which existence is sustained loving or unloving. That is, the act of sustaining existence derives its character as loving or unloving from the purpose for which it is undertaken. It does not seem to me to be loving to sustain someone’s existence if the person is being “fattened for the slaughter” so to speak (which is certainly a possible reason for keeping somebody alive), kept alive to so that he or she meets their unconditionally predetermined damnation. I can keep my enemy alive. Doesn’t mean I love him. All depends on the end purpose for which God sustains us.

Fine. If the MAIN PURPOSE is to empower, but not completely dysfunctionally enable, ALL sentient beings to exist as distinct beings before God, and in that, taking all ramifications of that life, then it is loving. And if you recall, Tom, this goes EXACTLY with my description of love. Wink

God's CHIEF PURPOSE for us is for us to be distinct personal CREATIONS before God that, in our various, respective distinctiveness(es?), glorify God. All creation glorifies God, yes?

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 8/29/2003 4:26 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi,

My concern is this:

You are now going to say that, based on the "glorification principle" that God could have in some way "ordained"

Zosia getting her eyes poked out
September 11
The holocaust
Rape
Murder
Destruction
Etc, etc, etc.

I don't think anyone here is agreeing to that. And no matter what you can point to in the Old Testament to support such an idea, I would point to the New Covenant brought by Jesus Christ to show what love and glory look like - and they don't look like any of the above.

God's glory is being born in a filthy manger, riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, and dying a torturous death on a cross. We DO know what God's glory looks like - we have seen it definitively in a love so great it leads one to willingly die to save one's own murderers.

Although it is true that pain is necessary for learning, pain in the world is bountifully available without God orchestrating more of it for his glory. An analogy is raising children. Certainly kids learn about natural consequences by making mistakes and getting burned when they touch something hot, for example. But only a sadistic and unloving parent would teach their children about hot stoves by forcibly pressing their hand down on it - perhaps to show the "glory" of the parent's greater knowledge and "love" for the child that the child might learn about hot things, or perhaps to sacrifice one child's hand to show the other kids in the family how NOT to do that.

If you are willing to say definitively that God NEVER ordains or orchestrates murder, rape, torture, and destruction, then I would be willing to consider your thesis. I agree that these are all things that are a part of a world in which God has given freedom, but I reject the idea that God himself ever orchestrates such things for a "greater good" purpose - unless someone has given God the authority by AGREEING to do God's will, whatever that will might be.

And when it comes right down to it, given the revelation of Jesus Christ - and what that suggests about who God is - I do not believe that God's glory is in any way disconnected from Love and the fullness of Life - and so I see no mystery of purpose which might suggest that God might be holding the puppet strings of Hitler or Pol Pot or [insert ruthless dictator here] for even a moment. And everything about Jesus' life screams out against such an interpretation of God's glory.

I do not have a problem with God causing us great pain, because pain is not the same as evil. But I think the pain he causes comes in the form of a fuller awareness of the actual results of our own behavior, NOT in the form of ever causing us to do some destructive act on another. Human beings manage that part very well on their own.

So I would never agree to anything that posits the "mystery" of Zosia or 9-11 in God's will, other than the fact that he created a world in which freedom requires that such things are possible.

To go even further and attribute any aspect of that to God's glory is a complete anathema to me.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6)

Let me say this so we don’t get mixed up.

The two propositions DO contour the type of Creation that God made. But the two propositions are NOT of the same importance. See, if taken one way, it can be interpreted that God ultimately DESIRED for sin to exist…just so that certain contexts of brokenness would exist in which God can reveal Godself. That the emergence of sin was INTENTIONALLY PLANNED from the beginning. But that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that God’s FIRST intention, combined with God’s infinitely intelligent understanding of the inevitability of sin, gives rise to the SECOND intention. But both of these intentions exist “BEFORE” Creation and contour the parameters and dimensions of Creation.

Now for those of you who really do believe that the emergence of sin REALLY was not thought to be at least HIGHLY PROBABLE from God’s point of view, given the large scope of God’s plans and God's infinite intelligence….well, first of all…

BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Tongue

(cough) Excuse me…whoooo….

Second, I suppose that this idea may not work for you. Toobadsosad. Sad

Just jokin...

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmm…a little longer wait than expected but…cool.

Semeia:

quote:
If you are willing to say definitively that God NEVER ordains or orchestrates murder, rape, torture, and destruction, then I would be willing to consider your thesis. I agree that these are all things that are a part of a world in which God has given freedom, but I reject the idea that God himself ever orchestrates such things for a "greater good" purpose - unless someone has given God the authority by AGREEING to do God's will, whatever that will might be.

And when it comes right down to it, given the revelation of Jesus Christ - and what that suggests about who God is - I do not believe that God's glory is in any way disconnected from Love and the fullness of Life - and so I see no mystery of purpose which might suggest that God might be holding the puppet strings of Hitler or Pol Pot or [insert ruthless dictator here] for even a moment. And everything about Jesus' life screams out against such an interpretation of God's glory.

I do not have a problem with God causing us great pain, because pain is not the same as evil. But I think the pain he causes comes in the form of a fuller awareness of the actual results of our own behavior, NOT in the form of ever causing us to do some destructive act on another. Human beings manage that part very well on their own.
So I would never agree to anything that posits the "mystery" of Zosia or 9-11 in God's will, other than the fact that he created a world in which freedom requires that such things are possible.

To go even further and attribute any aspect of that to God's glory is a complete anathema to me.

1) No one is saying that God’s glory is not shown in weakness. That IS definitely a place where God’s glory is shown. No one’s denying that. And the glorification principle allows for this. But texts in that Old Testament are to be reconciled as well. I believe this does both.

2) THIS is where the rubber meets the road. We have to be able to ADMIT that, when it comes to issues of pain, suffering, and loss, that we are STILL finite beings who DON’T see all the angles like God does! But hey, if anyone TRULY wants to try and JUDGE what is ultimately REDEMPTIVE to whom on what grounds or not, I suppose that you can do that. I cannot do that. Given my finitude and the VASTNESS of Creation and the interrelation of the two, I personally don’t feel that I could make a decent analysis (without the Spirit of God definitively telling me of course) of WHAT things are definitely “sacrifices of the rook for the queen” and what things definitely aren't. Just like I can't tell what things may ultimately be of demonic origin or just plain old bad luck. I just don’t have that scope of vision. I can DEFINITELY tell suffering, pain, and loss when I see it…and with that I can know that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, given God's intentions for Creation, NO suffering, pain, or loss would ever happen. I can also know BY FAITH in God's character reflected in Jesus that IF (and that’s the operative word IF) this is indeed a situation where carefully detailed divine direction is in operation, there is in some REAL way a redemptive purpose greater than I can imagine coming out of it.

But am I REALLY going to spend my time trying to figure out WHAT the ultimate causes for these situations are? OR Am I going to prayerfully respond to ALL these situations in faith, hope, and love while being open to the Spirit for leadership?

I am willing to COMPLETELY admit my finite lack of perspective…while at the SAME time hold faith in God’s character that IF God IS compatibilistically working in times of pain, suffering, and loss that it IS a “rook being sacrificed for the queen” scenario where some redemption IS the ultimate result.

If anyone can’t do that, then I guess this view ain’t for them. Oh, well. Big Smile

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 5:00 AM (GMT -6)

Let’s admit something, people.

There is NO WAY that in ANY GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE of our all-too-earthly experience that we can say WITHOUT DOUBT that God DEFINITELY isn’t working compatibilistically. We just don’t have the context, y’all. Is this to say that we don’t recognize pain, suffering, loss, and evil when we see it? Not at all. What this is to say is that there are SO MANY FACTORS in our world that mesh together, it is pretty FRUITLESS to trying and understand the ultimate source of all particular instances of pains, suffering, loss, and evil.

Y’all know as well as I do how things work. Something that may seem UNIMPORTANT over here…may have drastic effects over there. We just don’t have the vision to be able to JUDGE these type of things. Sure, it makes it easier on us to do some “Occam’s Razor” type thinking. Just like what some people did with September 11th.

"It was DEFINITELY God's judgement."

"It was DEFINITELY some demonic oppression"

"It was DEFINITELY the free choices of those madmen."

It was more existentially satisfying this way. They got to remove all the ambiguity. But come ON, y’all. We’ve been through this. We just can’t know all the factors. There may be many cases where ALL of the factors possible are in play to some degree. NOW what??

At some point, ladies and gentlemen, we have to admit our finitude and truly place FAITH and TRUST in God’s wisdom and character. There’s no real alternative that I can see.

Who's friggin with me? Eyebrow

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6)

Think about this.

If the whole IDEA of God “hardening” hearts wasn’t REVEALED to us via Scripture, would we even THINK about this type of stuff happening when we saw any type of evil?

NO!

We would automatically say that the persons doing the evil acts were operating COMPLETELY from their OWN characters and tendencies…and nothing else. Occam's Razor, right?

Shouldn’t this TELL us something about our capacity to “judge” situations and their ultimate causations???

BJS! Where you at? I know you're down with this! You've been here with me before! Wink

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 5:14 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia:

quote:
And when it comes right down to it, given the revelation of Jesus Christ - and what that suggests about who God is - I do not believe that God's glory is in any way disconnected from Love and the fullness of Life - and so I see no mystery of purpose which might suggest that God might be holding the puppet strings of Hitler or Pol Pot or [insert ruthless dictator here] for even a moment.

You seem to be neglecting not only Isaiah 10 (that Polycarp has mentioned numerous times) but ALSO Habakkuk, about how God sent the Babylonians to totally MESS UP God’s people. You know, raping, pillaging, all that. It’s all right there, lady.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/29/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: It’s all right there, lady.

Tom: Are you OK Mephi?

Tom

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:

quote:
Are you OK Mephi?

What do you mean? I just said "It's all right there, lady." What? Was that implicitly malevolent or insulting without my knowing it? I said "lady"? This ain't the same thing as "honey" or "baby" or something like that, right? Question

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/29/2003 7:10 AM (GMT -6)

God's hardening of people's hearts is never arbitrary. To the contrary, in every instance in which we read of God hardening hearts (as in Romans 9) it is only AFTER those hardened already had rejected his grace.

In Romans 9 it is those Jews who refused to believe the good news who were hardened.

In Thessalonians it is those who have already rejected the gospel upon whom the Lord sends "a strong delusion."

King Saul had "an evil spirit from the LORD" when? AFTER he had indulged himself in rebellion and had been rejected by God as king.

Jesus told those who were attributing his miracles to Satan that there could be no forgiveness for blaspheming the Holy Spirit because one who has done this has in so doing totally rejected the only One who could convict him of the truth.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6)

John:

quote:
God's hardening of people's hearts is never arbitrary. To the contrary, in every instance in which we read of God hardening hearts (as in Romans 9) it is only AFTER those hardened already had rejected his grace.

I would AGREE that God doesn’t harden hearts in an arbitrary fashion, as if based upon pure whimsy There is always divine reason and purpose behind it. The reason may be judgement or redemptive outcomes. Neither case is excluded. No one’s saying that God’s doing that is completely arbitrary.

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 8/29/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi said:

1) No one is saying that God’s glory is not shown in weakness. That IS definitely a place where God’s glory is shown. No one’s denying that. And the glorification principle allows for this. But texts in that Old Testament are to be reconciled as well. I believe this does both.

Semeia:

You say this as if the Old Testament weren’t already reconciled by the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament says, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek.” Reconciled.

The Old Testament says, “Stone adulterers unto death.” Jesus says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Reconciled.

The Old Testament Jews were waiting for a Savior to come riding in on a white horse to vanquish their enemy. Jesus came riding in on a donkey to die an ignominious death on the cross for their enemy and for them. Reconciled.

The Old Testament says, “Be good or you will die.” Jesus says, “Believe in me and you will have eternal life.” Reconciled.

We don’t have to reconcile anything in the Old Testament in order to know God. Jesus said, “If you see me, you see the Father.” If what we see in the Old Testament appears to be at odds with Jesus Christ, then we are not seeing it correctly. The Old Testament cannot be read AS IF Jesus did not come and show us who God really is. It can only be read through the lens of Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, the God who was revealed to us on the cross of Calvary. And that God is revealed to be a God who heals the sick and feeds the hungry and offers a spring of eternal water to the thirsty. Does he rape or pillage or murder to somehow get people to choose love and redemption? Not exactly. He cries out for forgiveness for his murderers while dying a slow and horrible death. I see no room here to interpret Zosia or 9-11 as potential acts of God. God does NOT sacrifice the rook for the Queen – he would rather DIE than do so. If we use the chess board analogy, I would say that God is clearly the most valuable piece, and he proved on Calvary that he would sacrifice HIMSELF over sacrificing a heinous murderer.

Mephi said:

2) THIS is where the rubber meets the road. We have to be able to ADMIT that, when it comes to issues of pain, suffering, and loss, that we are STILL finite beings who DON’T see all the angles like God does!

Semeia:

Yes – I say what I say because I’m omniscient! I am synonymous with God. God equals me. I’m surprised it took you so long to see the resemblance… King

Or maybe I just have a different view of the evidence, and I don’t place the mystery in the same place you do.

Mephi:

But hey, if anyone TRULY wants to try and JUDGE what is ultimately REDEMPTIVE to whom on what grounds or not, I suppose that you can do that. I cannot do that. Given my finitude and the VASTNESS of Creation and the interrelation of the two, I personally don’t feel that I could make a decent analysis (without the Spirit of God definitively telling me of course) of WHAT things are definitely “sacrifices of the rook for the queen” and what things definitely aren't.

Semeia:

I look at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and nowhere do I see God sacrificing the rook for the Queen. What I see is God sacrificing himself for the most wretched sinner the world has to offer. Jesus showed me what is REDEMPTIVE on the cross. And he told me what is redemptive when he said, “No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his brother.” Nothing in Jesus’ life leads me to believe that SOMETIMES due to some MYSTERY it is really redemptive for God (or anyone) to rape, torture, or murder someone. He explicitly said that “a house divided cannot stand” – and since he went around healing people and raising them from the dead it strikes me as illogical that it could be God himself who sometimes MAKES people sick or who MURDERS them in order for them to have redemption. Just as it is illogical for Jesus to be HEALING by the power of BEELZEBUB; so it is illogical for RAPE and MURDER to be by the power of GOD.

To say that we can’t tell someone who is raped or Zosia’s mother that it was NOT the will of God that these things happen is no different from not being able to tell whether or not Jesus was healing by the power of Beelzebub. Didn’t Jesus say something like, “You who are evil, would you give your child a stone to eat? How much more will the father give you?” (I’m paraphrasing.) If we “who are evil” would never consider it loving to rape, murder or torture, is it even possible that God would do so? Is it really just a problem with our human finiteness that we have an incomplete definition of love, and that if we were God we would see that love sometimes includes rape, murder and torture? Or is it more like, even we who are evil can tell the difference between bread and a stone?

Mephi said:

Just like I can't tell what things may ultimately be of demonic origin or just plain old bad luck. I just don’t have that scope of vision. I can DEFINITELY tell suffering, pain, and loss when I see it…and with that I can know that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, given God's intentions for Creation, NO suffering, pain, or loss would ever happen.

Semeia:

I don’t agree with that statement. I am not at all sure that God’s intentions for Creation suggest that if possible, NO suffering, pain, or loss would ever happen. I think suffering, pain and loss are part of life, even of eternal life, and so a utopian view holds no allure for me. Heaven is certainly a place where there is some suffering, because God is in heaven and God grieves. If God can grieve in heaven, it seems to me that anyone can grieve in heaven. I don’t think God intended to create a world in which no pain would ever happen. But that is still quite different from saying that God ordains some rape and murder. I knew when I gave birth to my children that it was one hundred percent certain that they would disobey me. One needs only to spend ten minutes with a two-year-old to know the truth of that. At a certain age, for example, all my children would dart out into the street if I weren’t constantly stopping them. But giving birth to kids who I know are going to dart out into the street is still entirely different from purposely sending them out to play on the freeway.

Mephi said:

I can also know BY FAITH in God's character reflected in Jesus that IF (and that’s the operative word IF) this is indeed a situation where carefully detailed divine direction is in operation, there is in some REAL way a redemptive purpose greater than I can imagine coming out of it.

Semeia:

If God’s character is reflected in Jesus, why would you EVER look at rape, murder or torture and think that “carefully detailed divine direction is in operation”? What does God have to do to prove that he is not like that – die on the cross for a bunch of murdering sinners, or something?

Mephi:

But am I REALLY going to spend my time trying to figure out WHAT the ultimate causes for these situations are? OR Am I going to prayerfully respond to ALL these situations in faith, hope, and love while being open to the Spirit for leadership?

Semeia:

If we don’t spend our time looking for the REAL causes of rape, murder, and disasters on the scale of 9-11, how in the world will we ever learn how to prevent such things, and progress toward a world in which God’s love is ever more evident? How do you prayerfully respond if at the back of your mind (or perhaps right out front) you see God as a potential AUTHOR of, or PLAYER in such catastrophes? How do you pray? “God, to the extent that you MIGHT HAVE raped that girl for a redemptive purpose, I am ever the theistic bootlicker and I want you to know that I love you and all your purposes. To the extent that you DIDN’T rape that girl for a redemptive purpose, I want to say that I am ever the theistic bootlicker and I want you to know that I love you and all your purposes.” I’m not saying this to be funny – I honestly don’t understand how one who held your view would pray about things if there always exists the possibility that God seriously orchestrates a particular tragedy. This really gets to the heart of why I could never be a Calvinist. To me, the life of Jesus Christ eliminates the possibility that God operates in such a way.

Mephi said:

I am willing to COMPLETELY admit my finite lack of perspective…while at the SAME time hold faith in God’s character that IF God IS compatibilistically working in times of pain, suffering, and loss that it IS a “rook being sacrificed for the queen” scenario where some redemption IS the ultimate result.

Semeia:

I believe that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ shows that God NEVER sacrifices the rook to save the Queen – that, quite the opposite, he sacrifices the Queen for all the worthless, murdering, sinning rooks – because the end not only doesn’t justify the means, but the means IS the end: “No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his brother.”

Mephi:

If anyone can’t do that, then I guess this view ain’t for them. Oh, well. Big Smile

Semeia:

… Bandit

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/29/2003 8:23 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: What do you mean? I just said "It's all right there, lady." What? Was that implicitly malevolent or insulting without my knowing it? I said "lady"? This ain't the same thing as "honey" or "baby" or something like that, right? Question

Tom: My bad. Sorry bro.

Bandit

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 8:26 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia,

Just for giggles…

Acts 5:1
But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 “Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!” 5 Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him.

Acts 5:7
After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things.

Please explain this episode to me. What happened?

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/29/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia:

quote:
How do you prayerfully respond if at the back of your mind (or perhaps right out front) you see God as a potential AUTHOR of, or PLAYER in such catastrophes? How do you pray? “God, to the extent that you MIGHT HAVE raped that girl for a redemptive purpose, I am ever the theistic bootlicker and I want you to know that I love you and all your purposes. To the extent that you DIDN’T rape that girl for a redemptive purpose, I want to say that I am ever the theistic bootlicker and I want you to know that I love you and all your purposes.” I’m not saying this to be funny – I honestly don’t understand how one who held your view would pray about things if there always exists the possibility that God seriously orchestrates a particular tragedy. This really gets to the heart of why I could never be a Calvinist. To me, the life of Jesus Christ eliminates the possibility that God operates in such a way.

Heh. Very interesting. Actually, this is how I pray in situations of extreme pain, grief, or loss even in my OWN life…

“Lord, I don’t know exactly what’s going on. I may have some idea, but I don’t know everything. But you do. Give me the strength to love HARD in this situation, the resolve to relieve the pain I can relieve, and the discernment by Your Spirit to show me the best place for me to be in this situation. I can’t do this without You, so please help me. Let your will be done in this situation, in my life, in what may come of this.”

There you have it. That’s how an unabashed theistic bootlicker prays when he works in a cancer ward, among the homeless, or with terribly abused children. Like it?

An open thiest could pray this with integrity. A Calvinist could pray this with integrity.

Heh. Wink

127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual